| Literature DB >> 28438220 |
Sarah Elhamiani Khatat1,2, Sylvie Daminet3, Malika Kachani4, Christian M Leutenegger5, Luc Duchateau3, Hamid El Amri6, Mony Hing7, Rahma Azrib8, Hamid Sahibi8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaplasma phagocytophilum is an emerging tick-borne zoonotic pathogen of increased interest worldwide which has been detected in northern Africa. Anaplasma platys is also present in this region and could possibly have a zoonotic potential. However, only one recent article reports on the human esposure to A. phagocytophilum in Morocco and no data are available on canine exposure to both bacteria. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional epidemiological study aiming to assess both canine and human exposure to Anaplasma spp. in Morocco. A total of 425 dogs (95 urban, 160 rural and 175 working dogs) and 11 dog owners were sampled from four cities of Morocco. Canine blood samples were screened for Anaplasma spp. antibodies by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and for A. phagocytophilum and A. platys DNA by a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting the msp2 gene. Human sera were tested for specific A. phagocytophilum immunoglobulin G (IgG) using a commercial immunofluorescence assay (IFA) kit.Entities:
Keywords: Anaplasma phagocytophilum; Anaplasma platys; Dogs; Humans; Morocco; PCR; Rhipicephalus sanguineus; Serology
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28438220 PMCID: PMC5404288 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-017-2148-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Rhipicephalus sanguineus engorged ticks attached to the ear of a dog from Group I
Number and prevalence (%) of positive and negative dogs to Anaplasma spp. antibodies (by ELISA) and A. platys DNA detection (by PCR), and positive to both methods in the different groups
| Groupa |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Not available | ||
| Group I ( | 11 (2.6) | 84 (19.8) | 3 (0.8) | 88 (24.3) | 4 | 1 (0.3) |
| Group Ia ( | 7 (1.6) | 56 (13.2) | 2 (0.5) | 57 (15.7) | 4 | 0 (0.0) |
| Group Ib ( | 4 (0.9) | 28 (6.6) | 1 (0.3) | 31 (8.6) | 0 | 1 (0.3) |
| Group II ( | 45 (10.6) | 115 (27.1) | 4 (1.1) | 100 (27.6) | 56 | 1 (0.3) |
| Group III ( | 37 (8.7) | 133 (31.3) | 20 (5.5) | 147 (40.7) | 3 | 9 (2.3) |
| Total ( | 93 (21.9) | 332 (78.1) | 27 (7.5) | 335 (92.5) | 63 | 11 (3.0) |
aGroup I: urban client-owned dogs sample in the VTH; Group Ia: urban client-owned dogs sample in the VTH without clinical signs compatible with a TBD; Group Ib: urban client-owned dogs sample in the VTH with clinical signs compatible with a TBD; Group II: rural client-owned dogs; Group III: military and gendarmerie working dogs
Number and prevalence of (%) positive and negative dogs to Anaplasma spp. antibodies (by ELISA) and A. platys DNA detection (by PCR) according to the sex, the age and the exposure to ticks
| Variable |
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Not available | Positive | Negative | Not available | ||
| Sex | Male | 59 (13.9) | 198 (46.6) | – | 20 (5.5) | 187 (51.7) | 50 |
| Female | 23 (5.4) | 118 (27.8) | – | 5 (1.4) | 123 (34.0) | 13 | |
| Age (yrs) | < 1 | 9 (2.1) | 52 (12.2) | – | 3 (0.8) | 52 (14.4) | 6 |
| 1–5 | 56 (13.2) | 194 (45.6) | – | 21 (5.8) | 183 (50.6) | 46 | |
| ≥ 6 | 13 (3.0) | 61 (14.3) | – | 2 (0.5) | 62 (17.1) | 10 | |
| Ticks exposure | 40 (9.4) | 46 (10.8) | 9 | 40 (11.0) | 46 (12.7) | 9 | |
Fig. 2Photographs of ultraviolet light microscopy (×400) of A. phagocytophilum IgG using IFA and showing a negative control (a), a positive control (b) and for positive dilutions i.e. 1:64 (c), 1:128 (d); 1:256 (e) and 1:516 (f). The positivity is set on the observation of green morulae surrounding the cell’s cytoplasmic membrane